Posted on Tuesday, June 5, 2018

The SEC has published a request for comment (RFC) on Fund Retail Investor Experience and Disclosure. The RFC is seeking public comment from individual investors and other interested parties on enhancing disclosures by mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), and other types of investment funds to improve the investor experience and to help investors make more informed investment decisions.

The SEC wants to learn how investors use these disclosures and how funds can improve disclosures to help retail investors make decisions. They are particularly interested in the delivery, design, and content of fund disclosures. Comments are due October 31, 2018.

XBRL is referenced in some of the questions posted by the SEC including:

  • Is there additional mutual fund or ETF information that we should require in a structured disclosure format? If so, what information?
  • Are there other formats for structuring disclosures that would make disclosures more accessible or useful to you and other data users? Are other standards, besides XBRL and XML, becoming more widely used or otherwise superior to these formats in allowing you and other data users to easily retrieve, aggregate, and analyze fund data? If so, what are those standards? What would be the advantages and drawbacks of these formats to investors, funds, and other data users, compared to XBRL or XML?
  • We currently provide risk/return summary information (that is, objectives, fees, principal strategies, principal risks, and performance disclosures) extracted from mutual fund XBRL filings on our website for download.
  • Should we provide other fund industry and fund-specific census-type and portfolio information data sets on our website for download? If so, what additional information should we provide, and how would you use that information?
  • Is there additional mutual fund or ETF information that we should require in a structured disclosure format? If so, what information?

Read the request for comment: https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2018/33-10503.pdf

 



Comment